Money in the bank

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

The LAZIEST bookings are matches like the 15 minute Hardcore Invitational and the "Mania Leftovers" battle royals they've done two years in a row now. I give those a pass since they're dark matches / DVD extras.

The Hardcore invitational made sense because it was a closure on the 24/7 title angle and it was a fresh concept of a battle royal. The battle royals I agree with.

[Black Lushus 0]

HHH isn't back until Summerslam, plenty of PPVs to fued with UT.

[humanoid92 0]

I think Maniavent can work well in small doses.

 

Anyway, as long as they're going ahead with MITB, I'm not opposed to something similar to the proposed Edge/Shawn scenario, but I really think if they do something like that, it should be a babyface. We've already seen Edge cash in at the end of a PPV, which was fine, but if they do it again, I'd like to see it with a face. Yeah, you can say it's a sneaky move, fitting of a heel, but if a face did it, it would really pop the crowd. Especially if the guy doing it won the title from a freshly crowned heel.

 

Like in the Flair scenario from last year. Not saying Flair would have been the perfect guy to do it with, but just looking at the template. Flair goes over in MITB, huge heel HHH beats babyface Cena for the Title, and right away, Flair comes out and steals the Title from Hunter. I like the concept of heel going over the face for the title and being usurped by a different face, because it seems like a more complex scenario. If you do it with a heel going over, then you've got two heels and one face. I just like the dynamic better. Of course in this instances I guess Cena and Shawn are both faces anyway, so whatever.

[Black Lushus 0]

knowing that UT will probably go over in the last match lends credibility to your Edge theories...I just don't like seeing that happen AGAIN.

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

The LAZIEST bookings are matches like the 15 minute Hardcore Invitational and the "Mania Leftovers" battle royals they've done two years in a row now. I give those a pass since they're dark matches / DVD extras.

The Hardcore invitational made sense because it was a closure on the 24/7 title angle and it was a fresh concept of a battle royal. The battle royals I agree with.

 

I agree and still enjoy watching the match on my annual Road to WrestleMania (and I'm at that speedbump right now where I watched WMX, so I have 11, 12, 13, 15, and even 16 to a point to trudge through), but looking back, did the Mean Street Posse really deserve a Mania payoff?

[BorneAgain 0]

The dual winner scenario with Edge and Orton I suggested at in the Wrestlemania thread was really just an attempt to keep the former's streak going while putting a new twist on MITB. Like a previous poster said, there's not much more one can do with it, and a quasi-deterrence scenario with two heels reluctant to use their shots for fear of betrayal by the other seemed to be an interesting new way to go.

[humanoid92 0]

Not necessarily Edge's. That last post wasn't specifically about MITB, just the way they seem to handle elevating guys and their general booking philosophies. I probably shouldn't have opened my mouth about that in this thread.

 

Anyway, the real point of the thread was just that I don't see the point in matches like MITB and to me it's uninspired booking. Earlier, you said it's a good way to get top tier guys on the card- my whole argument is that it's just a way to jam them on there- not necessarily a good way.

 

Going back to what I was saying about the fundamental problem with #1 contender matches in general, once those exist every so often, why then should anybody care about other matches? If a #1 contender match is just a shortcut to hijacking your way into a title shot, then why do other major matches exist. I guess I don't like the whole aspect of having it spelled out. With good booking, you can establish a guy as a top contender by having him evolve and progress over time to the point where he's a legitimate top contender. There's some underlying progression there. They don't have to spell it out for you by creating the status of having a #1 contender. Russo used that crap all the time because he had no idea how to actually build someone up. Of course titles changed hands every two weeks anyway, so it's not like it mattered much. I know it's only once a year, so MITB isn't really *that* bad in the grand scheme of things. It's just the notion behind it that I don't like.

 

If they are going to do this though, I do like that there's actually a briefcase as a symbol of their status (which also provides a logical reason to make it a ladder match in the first place) but I still think the concept behind the idea is lazy.

Number one contender matches are a hallmark of wrestling, and a perfectly acceptable way of choosing a challenger. I think everyone can agree that it is a logical move. That said, is it a lazy move to have an annual match to choose a contender? I don't see how it would rank much different from the Royal Rumble or the King of the Ring tournament. We're not talking about a common match that continually propels undeserving wrestlers to title matches. Both times it has been used to create title matches that would otherwise be nearly impossible to book under normal conditions. The concept itself is fine. The only danger is that there are only so many times you can book a six-man ladder match on an annual show before they start to run together in the fans' minds. It's not a match that lends itself to storytelling.

 

That said, is it just a lazy way to throw a bunch of wrestlers on the undercard? Perhaps. But would it be better to book 2-4 of them in less meaningful matches and leave the others off the card? Others might prefer it that way. I honestly think the match is more exciting than traditional matches, so I like the concept. You might not, and that is valid.

 

At what point did they become a hallmark?

 

Even with the King of the Ring, they didn't beat you over the head with it. It wasn't an automatic ticket. Mabel was the only guy at first to go on and get a big Title shot because of it. With Bret and Owen and Austin etc. it just put them over and reinforced their credibility. I like that kind of more subtle booking better.

 

The bolded part is one of the things I really dislike about the match. I'm glad you brought that up.

 

As far as the less meaningful matches, that's the thing- with strong booking, those other matches would not have to be less meaningful. Just because they're not #1 contenders matches doesn't mean they can't have any meaning. I'm not talking Edge/Booker shampoo feud matches here, I'm talking about well-planned, long-term, logical storylines for the guys that deserve it. And of course your thoughts are just as valid.

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

Well Owen also fought Bret for the title at SummerSlam 94, but that was more his KOTR victory and alliance with Jim Neidhart continuing the family feud - the KOTR win, title match, and complete storyline (WMX win over Bret) all gelled together there.

 

Lesnar - as far as I recall - is the first and only KOTR winner to be given a PPV title bout as a direct result of winning the tournament, and that worked out pretty well for him.

[BorneAgain 0]

Well Owen also fought Bret for the title at SummerSlam 94, but that was more his KOTR victory and alliance with Jim Neidhart continuing the family feud - the KOTR win, title match, and complete storyline (WMX win over Bret) all gelled together there.

 

Lesnar - as far as I recall - is the first and only KOTR winner to be given a PPV title bout as a direct result of winning the tournament, and that worked out pretty well for him.

As I recall that wasn't considered a given with KOTR. McMahon made that stipulation after Lesnar interfered and gave Vince total control of WWE in match with Flair.

[humanoid92 0]

Well Owen also fought Bret for the title at SummerSlam 94, but that was more his KOTR victory and alliance with Jim Neidhart continuing the family feud - the KOTR win, title match, and complete storyline (WMX win over Bret) all gelled together there.

 

Eaxctly! This is the kind of booking I love. Everything did gel perfectly and the whole thing was a brilliant storyline. Not everything is going to work as well as this did, but booking like this, in my opinion, sure beats the type that relies on #1 contender matches and "push the guy by putting him over everyone and shove him to the top right away."

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

My memory of the situation is a mix of the two. As a reward for Lesnar helping Vince, Vince accepted Heyman's proposal that whoever won the KOTR would get a SummerSlam title match (as Heyman was very confident Brock would win).

[Sonic Reducer 0]

As far as having Edge and Booker in the match, and in the case of someone like CM Punk winning, it would elevate him proving he can beat main eventers at the big shows ... thus giving him more credibility in being a threat to the title.

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

Well Owen also fought Bret for the title at SummerSlam 94, but that was more his KOTR victory and alliance with Jim Neidhart continuing the family feud - the KOTR win, title match, and complete storyline (WMX win over Bret) all gelled together there.

 

Eaxctly! This is the kind of booking I love. Everything did gel perfectly and the whole thing was a brilliant storyline. Not everything is going to work as well as this did, but booking like this, in my opinion, sure beats the type that relies on #1 contender matches and "push the guy by putting him over everyone and shove him to the top right away."

 

While this is a minor problem (especially since it still happens to this day with the Rumble), the scenario of booking someone to look strong and tying it to a major win as a story point - not a #1 contender guarantee - leads to predictability. Almost everyone who was old enough to 'know the deal' about wrestling knew Owen was winning the KOTR, where a random "#1 contender battle royal" or MITB match with no pre-made storyline behind it can yield unpredictable results.

 

The flip side of this is long term storytelling with some given predictability is a great way to build interest in the product.

 

Leela: "Why not? It's clever, it's unexpected..."

Fry: "But that's not why people watch TV. Clever things make people feel stupid and unexpected things make them feel scared."

[humanoid92 0]

Well Owen also fought Bret for the title at SummerSlam 94, but that was more his KOTR victory and alliance with Jim Neidhart continuing the family feud - the KOTR win, title match, and complete storyline (WMX win over Bret) all gelled together there.

 

Eaxctly! This is the kind of booking I love. Everything did gel perfectly and the whole thing was a brilliant storyline. Not everything is going to work as well as this did, but booking like this, in my opinion, sure beats the type that relies on #1 contender matches and "push the guy by putting him over everyone and shove him to the top right away."

 

While this is a minor problem (especially since it still happens to this day with the Rumble), the scenario of booking someone to look strong and tying it to a major win as a story point - not a #1 contender guarantee - leads to predictability. Almost everyone who was old enough to 'know the deal' about wrestling knew Owen was winning the KOTR, where a random "#1 contender battle royal" or MITB match with no pre-made storyline behind it can yield unpredictable results.

 

The flip side of this is long term storytelling with some given predictability is a great way to build interest in the product.

 

Leela: "Why not? It's clever, it's unexpected..."

Fry: "But that's not why people watch TV. Clever things make people feel stupid and unexpected things make them feel scared."

 

I see what you're saying. Although it doesn't always have to be like that. At this point I think going to more subtle booking like that would actually create some surprises for people who now think they 'know the deal' about wrestling, just because it would be operating differently than they do today. I mean, you say that wacky matches like MITB create unpredictable environments but for those people that are in the know already, how much is there that they don't already know anyway? Everyone on this board knew Taker was winning the Rumble, and that Rey was winning the year before that. Most people figured RVD was winning MITB last year. When Smackdown had that battle royale, everyone knew Angle was winning. There's no unpredictability anyway.

 

And don't forget, just because there was a different approach back then didn't always make it predictable. Owen winning the KOTR was logical but not overly predictable. A lot of people were convinced Shawn was going over Diesel at WM 11, and then he didn't even get the Title until a year later. So I don't really equate the issue of lazy vs. subtle booking with predictable vs. unpredictable booking.

[Insanity 0]

I like the match, it's always entertaining and the best part about this year is that with 8 guys (most being top-tier) we can get more time in for other matches too. Remember when people cried foul over JBL/Benoit (a match that on the house shows was supposed to have been great) or that World Title match that was 9 minutes? They won't suffer this time.

[Guest poilbrun]

I see what you're saying. Although it doesn't always have to be like that. At this point I think going to more subtle booking like that would actually create some surprises for people who now think they 'know the deal' about wrestling, just because it would be operating differently than they do today. I mean, you say that wacky matches like MITB create unpredictable environments but for those people that are in the know already, how much is there that they don't already know anyway? Everyone on this board knew Taker was winning the Rumble, and that Rey was winning the year before that. Most people figured RVD was winning MITB last year. When Smackdown had that battle royale, everyone knew Angle was winning. There's no unpredictability anyway.

Don't forget that you (and I don't even include myself in it, since I don't read much about a show before it airs) are in the minority. Most people who watch the WWE had no clue that Angle was going to win. Same thing with Mysterio, especially when he entered as No. 2. Heck, before this year, no No. 30 had ever won the RR!

 

On the subject at hand, I like MitB matches. Ladder matches are fun, 8-man ladder matches are more fun, inter-brand 8-man ladder matches are even more fun! I prefer to see 8 Upper Midcarders in such a match than only seeing 2 or 4 in singles matches, with well-built storylines, especially given what it means nowadays. Last year, WM included 11 matches: just give me 10 well-built storylines (we need to include the no-storyline RR winner), and thus at least 20 wrestlers, that would cut it for a WM shot. I can't see them. Even the Women's title will be stupid. 5 shows to build up to your biggest PPV of the year? Please, give me a break. And please don't get it twisted, I'm not bashing WWE here, they're still the No. 1 promotion in my book! It's just that you can't have storylines running for several months anymore without some fans getting bored. *I* was getting bored of the Batista/Booker storyline, but then that may be because Batista was involved!

 

As far as No. 1 Contender matches are concerned, I don't mind them when they are there to decide between two main eventers. Both guys have proved that they have what it takes to challenge the title holder, now who gets the right? Of course it would be better if the two were to be put in a true storyline to decide it rather than just make the decision based on a match, but it's not always possible; for example, if one of the two was in another storyline and you don't want to confuse the fan with the same wrestler being in two storylines at the same time - see how that does not happen anymore? Jeff Hardy is in a storyline with MNM, so let's not put him in a second storyline but make him loose his IC for no reason. But if a No. 1 Contender match is there to shove an Upper Midcarder down my throat in a main event spot (ala Kennedy, though I was happy to see him in a main event), then please avoid it and build it up. Returning to the Kennedy example, I still don't understand it: they built him up as a serious contender (the only wrestler to beat 7 world champion in a year!) but then had to use a superficial reason like a tournament to put him in a title match.

[Guest Queen Leelee]

if Orton is in, he'll win and face Cena next year at WM, calling it right now.

And job after WWE fucks up his push for the 100th time.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I think itd be cool if next year it was some sort of match besides a ladder match..

[foleyfanforever88 0]

I think itd be cool if next year it was some sort of match besides a ladder match..

 

Reverse battle royal???

[Guest Queen Leelee]

C'mon people, let's not bitch about this match. Which is one of the few things WWE has done right. Or, just lucked upon.

 

My only complaint is that WWE should play this match up more. Treat it like it's as important as the Royal Rumble. Don't put it on 2nd at WM.

[Promoter 0]

I like the MITB concept, but I don't think the wwe initially created this to fill up the card with wrestlers. I think the wwe wanted a way to continue doing laddder matches at WM. I mean after that ladder match at WM 16 the fans are expecting it, so they just figured a way of doing it every year with something on the line.

 

I actually have a theory on what the wwe MAY be conjuring up for WM 23 in Michigan. Tell me what you guys think. I think Edge cashing in on UT is more likely than him doing it on Cena/HBK.

 

----------

EVERYONE has made valid points, but I missed seeing something that has been overlooked. WRESTLEMANIA IN MICHIGAN 20 YEARS AFTER HOGAN VS. ANDRE THE GIANT.

 

What was the hype of that match in 1987? Hulk Hogan's 3 year wwf heavyweight title reign going up against Andre The Giant's 15 year undefeated streak. That was one of the reasons why the event had such a draw and epic feel to it. There was a chance of Andre losing and there was a chance of Hulk Hogan losing.

 

The wwe has UT in the main event for this EXACT reason imo and it is a smart idea. I agree with those that say only EDGE makes sense in ending the streak and I say this because EDGE would be able to use the rub for years and then have someone beat him for the streak and continue a tradition started by UNDERTAKER at WrestleMania.

 

UT just retiring with a streak means nothing in the long run, but if he somehow loses in the right situation, right time, and right way the streak storyline can be used as a WM tradition for different eras instead of just the UT era of being unbeaten at the event.

 

I think EDGE saying he might use the MITB to cash in the very night of WM 23 has given the intrigue of streak vs. streak match at the event as an impromptu match as an added element that anything can happen. Suppose EDGE wins the MITB again and then challenges the world heavyweight champion at the end of the night? Sometimes they do things to not telegraph it in fans' minds, but in this instance it is smart to give fans the notion that it MAY happen.

 

I'm starting to think the wwe is second guessing Batista and rightfully so as the man to end the streak at Mania and may actually go with EDGE.

 

Andre the Giant was the king of the battle royal all the way up to 1987 until he lost the battle royal on snme to Hercules creating the intrigue for the Mania match that it was slightly possible to beat Andre. Andre historically is still seen as the man who was the king of the battle royal.

 

With this said, I go back and forth about whether Taker should lose the streak myself. However, if there EVER was a time for the wwe to do it it is this year simply because you can only do the WM return to Michigan celebration of the biggest WM ever once. Hogan not being there to be apart of this celebration imo is bad enough as he should be there in some kind of capacity. UT losing his streak at this event WILL be remembered more than him keeping the streak imo in the long run, but it has to be done very well.

 

The guy doing it doesn't have to brag for years to make fans remember him being the one to end the streak. When Hogan slammed and defeated Andre he bragged about it for a few months, but fans remembered it for years and still do. Andre in some ways got immortalized by losing that match as well.

 

What I see the wwe possibly doing is UT defeats Batista to win the gold. You get the happy ending in the main event and then Edge being a prick challenges UT for the title AND the streak with UT accepting.

If Edge wins the guy will be forever heel and if UT wins his legacy at Mania grows even more bigger than life. I say if on both sides because this is one thing where I think the decision has to be made the day of the show riding of the emotion of the crowd and event. You might have a Hogan/Rock type of thing where maybe just maybe EDGE will get a fair amount of people behind him because winning the MITB twice is kind of a heroic thing and then being man enough to challenge Taker at the end may win him some points with fans. Edge winning and moving to smackdown to be the main player on that show without worrying about trying to compete with golden boy Cena(I mean I kind of agreed with the booking with Cena going over him as he is the top babyface) the wwe may be showing Edge they have faith in him to carry a brand. He kind of proved he has the tools last year.

 

John Cena/HBK imo is more going to be like Steamboat/Savage and may steal the show as a one on one title match, but the streak is the main draw in the main event.

 

Edge saying he will cash in on Cena/HBK puts the focus on RAW. If he just flats out says UT/Batista the element of surprise is gone. I'm not saying it is a definite, but I'm saying the option and potential is there for the angle to happen because they are hinting certain things on television.

 

Going on Edge's character he would wait until the last match of the night to cash in because he would have gone through a grueling match himself in the MITB. That is why I say IF they do this angle Edge COULD become face. Becoming a two time winner in such a match and then having the balls to challenge Taker at the end of the night is a face move. Then tie in Edge's winning streak into it and it could work. I don't think they would be shooting themselves in the foot with having Edge/UT as an impromptu match because in actuality it isn't an impromptu match when they plan it.

 

The match may not have the same dynamic because a)would it be a title match to have the intrigue of title vs. streak b)anything can happen between now and next year c)element of surprise and shock is completely gone

 

I was a big Batista supporter, but it really is starting to look like Orton's abysmal failure as a face made people move toward Batista to take out HHH. Just remember how HHH completely punked Orton out of Evolution and took the title off him. Batista did get over I'm not saying that, but that whole Evolution angle helped Batista a lot. He hasn't been the same since going to smackdown imo. Just look at his overall performance from the switch from RAW to Smackdown. Even upon his return last year the wwe didn't give him the title right off the bat as supposedly planned at SummerSlam. They put him through Finlay to get his "rust" off. I don't know just look at Batista's heat level when he got the belt compared to now. At least Cena has kept it somewhat even throughout that "controversial" time.

 

I can bet money if UT were to leave to the competition with gimmick in tact the wwe can make the streak NOT look as important as they are pimping it. Look at who he's won against in this streak and the wwe can market guys like HBK. HHH, Hogan, Savage, and even Hart being more important to WrestleMania. The streak as someone said before wasn't really an issue until he won against monster heel HHH at WM 17. Why? Because HHH just from the simple win at Mania 16 made greatness and a feat that can't be matched being the first heel to retain his title in the history of WrestleMania. You can add Flair to the list as greats he has defeated, but he wasn't exactly Ric Flair 80's at the time. Superfly and Jake can be argued, but then you got the Flair issue of them being past their prime. Then you got Orton who has amounted to nothing compared to HHH and Flair.

 

Again, I'm back and forth about this UT win streak getting broken too, but I try to not look at it from a fan viewpoint and what would be best for the overall picture. I see the argument of Edge not ending the streak in the fashion of the MITB angle. What I disagree with is if Edge is not going to use the stipulation to fight Taker at Mania then he SHOULDN'T win the MITB and it should go to someone else like Orton. Give someone else the push and angle since Edge is already a top heel. I was thinking of Edge winning the MITB and creating something that triggers people to tune in in a fashion like Hogan turning heel(not saying that is the same level or anything, but something no one would see coming, but the booking actually foreshadowed it). I don't think that would happen with Edge winning and then going to smackdown and challenging the champion there(the whole thing with UT/Edge and the rub for Edge would be him ending the streak and title reign at Mania instead of just getting another title win which won't have the same effect on the big picture imo). They can do it the way you suggested, but I don't think that would make people stand and take notice of Edge as a new legend in the making. Taker has been defeated as champion before on regular ppv shows. Edge would just be seen as champion again like he was on RAW. Edge ending the streak and ending Taker's last reign as champion in one blow makes Edge more into a bona fide main eventer heel imo.

 

The angle worked greatly with Edge the first time simply because of the shock value of it(plus the wwe probably didn't even plan the thing properly when the year was running out on the stip). Orton winning and foiling Edge's plan and then going after Taker on smackdown might be stronger and leave Edge on RAW(you still have the whole Batista/Orton dynamic to play off). If Batista ends the streak and Orton wins MITB you can send him over.

Of course, as I said I'm back and forth on this and UT winning would be fine continuing the streak, but I think waiting to break the streak next year in a streak vs. streak angle will not have the same blow because it may be more expected. I'm for more "anything can happen" booking that makes sense. Too bad they can't book like this from top to bottom.

[cabbageboy 0]

I can counter all of this idiotic hypothetical booking with this: Edge winning the MITB again is moronic. Edge cashing it in the very night of the show is even more idiotic. Edge ending UT's streak in such a way is like business suicide.

 

What makes anyone think they have any serious top tier plans for Edge at this point? Ever since Unforgiven he's mostly been high class jobber heel fodder for either DX or Cena. His team with Orton was mostly done to have DX feud with some guys who could be considered actual wrestlers. I fail to see how being Cena's job bitch and then DX fodder equates with pulling a WM IX, beating either UT or HBK, ending UT's streak, etc. Also, keep in mind that trash booking at WM IX was done to send people home happy with a Hogan title win. I can't imagine WWE pulling shit like that in front of 78,000 people and having a heel win the title at WM in such a way. There are some things you do at New Year's Revolution and there are some things you do at WM.

 

I mean good grief. Edge and Orton neither have a hope in hell of winning this thing. Remember a commandment of wrestling: He who has a mortal enemy in a multi man match cannot win said match. Edge and Orton will cancel each other out and prevent the other from winning, so the MITB winner will be someone who has no real clear enemy. That man will be.....

 

Ken Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy will become Mr. Money in the Bank. And then job when he cashes it in.

[The Amazing Rando 0]

Ken Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy will become Mr. Money in the Bank. And then job when he cashes it in.

 

 

No, he'll win. I know that the first two MITB winners also went on to win their title matches, but I like the idea that it can be used to cement a guy in that place (unless they do something silly like get busted for possession and piss off corporate). Kennedy has Vince's backing, so he is definitely in line to win the title at some point and more than likely within the next year or so.

[Superfly Snuka 0]

quote name='Black Lushus' post='2428711' date='Feb 26 2007, 05:07 PM']I

I think there's something to this idea, because like I said, and like Al said, the concept will eventually run it's course. There's really only a few directions to go.

 

A) Guy waits and cashes in after a champ has just won a hard fought match

B) Guy challenges champion for major match ahead of time (which is really no different than how a typical PPV or Raw match is built up)

C) Guy challenges champion same night he wins (yet to be done).

 

You do forget option D) Waiting the whole year to main event WM 24. It would make most sense, one would think, to want to main event a WM, right? (Yes, I know, alot can happen or not happen in a year, including injury).

[ChrisMWaters 0]

I'll say this:

 

Money in the Bank is more deserving of a yearly Mania tradition than the annual Playboy related match.

 

XIX: The pillow fight thing with Torrie, Stacy, and the Miller Lite Girls

XX: The Playboy Evening Gown Match

21: Hemme challenging Trish for the title

22: Torrie vs. Candice, Pillow Fight.

23: (possibly) Melina vs. Ashley

[Black Lushus 0]

hey get your quoting right buddy, I didn't say that!

[hyperchord24 0]

I like it and no, I don't think it's lazy booking, but I do think that the qualifying matches are. Not so much that there's no thought going into those matches, but it seemed like one time before a RAW, one of the writers said, "hey we need some time to kill on RAW, so let's have qualifying matches for the MitB match."

[Promoter 0]

I can counter all of this idiotic hypothetical booking with this: Edge winning the MITB again is moronic. Edge cashing it in the very night of the show is even more idiotic. Edge ending UT's streak in such a way is like business suicide.

 

What makes anyone think they have any serious top tier plans for Edge at this point? Ever since Unforgiven he's mostly been high class jobber heel fodder for either DX or Cena. His team with Orton was mostly done to have DX feud with some guys who could be considered actual wrestlers. I fail to see how being Cena's job bitch and then DX fodder equates with pulling a WM IX, beating either UT or HBK, ending UT's streak, etc. Also, keep in mind that trash booking at WM IX was done to send people home happy with a Hogan title win. I can't imagine WWE pulling shit like that in front of 78,000 people and having a heel win the title at WM in such a way. There are some things you do at New Year's Revolution and there are some things you do at WM.

 

I mean good grief. Edge and Orton neither have a hope in hell of winning this thing. Remember a commandment of wrestling: He who has a mortal enemy in a multi man match cannot win said match. Edge and Orton will cancel each other out and prevent the other from winning, so the MITB winner will be someone who has no real clear enemy. That man will be.....

 

Ken Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy will become Mr. Money in the Bank. And then job when he cashes it in.

 

You do know this is the wwe we are talking about right? I also don't BUY Taker being a full time champion post Mania either. The guy is a part timer. I really don't see the point of Taker in a title match with the streak being hyped without them even considering trying to make history with UT's first Mania loss. I bypass Batista right now because he just doesn't deserve that kind of accolade. UT is always a division killer as champion and doesn't draw. They just have him in the main event for the obvious draw and comparisons of undefeated streaks in Michigan Mania shows imo.

 

EVERYBODY is Cena's job bitch, so I don't see how that makes a difference of whether or not they want to push Edge(I'm saying this and I WAS AGAINST EDGE as champ last year at all and was roasted on here for it). I highly doubt HBK is winning at Mania and that's HBK who doesn't lay down for anybody. If the wwe had the balls to turn AUSTIN HEEL IN TEXAS in front of 70,000 people for shock value I wouldn't pass them to do something like Edge cashing in on the night either. As for the WM IX booking with Hogan the WWE MARKETED THAT FINISH as one of the top 5 in Mania history, so what does that say about their booking philosophy? I'm just bringing it up as a POSSIBILITY! I actually doubt Kennedy is winning as well for the simple reason that there is no need for him to do that to get a title shot on smackdown and I don't see them moving him to RAW. Edge winning the first one was just following WM history of him always being the guy to grab the brass ring in ladder matches at Mania. RVD won for the reason of jumpstarting ecw at One Night Stand. If Orton is in the MITB I see him and Edge winning for the simple reason of keeping the two together without breaking them up and having the tension there until HHH comes back.

[Shooting Star 0]

I was all for it at first but now it seems like they are jamming everyone in there. I would have much rather see Hardys vs London/Kendrick at Wrestlemania instead of them both in the MITB.

[cd213 0]

I like the match. I have always been a fan of the number 1 contender idea. I thought ROH had it right when they did the rankings. Back in the day the IC title was a stepping stone to the main event.

 

The way I see it this year is Edge and Orton cost each other the match and they feud coming out of 'Mania. CM Punk wins and that sets up Punk vs Michaels as someone said earlier. Once Michaels takes care of Punk he will go on to feud with the returning HHH over the title at SummerSlam. (HHH will return and they will have a DX reunion and HHH will then turn on Michaels and then beat him for the title.)